A certificate in someone else’s name: the Council of State suspends the Héron crematorium architecture contract a second time, now because Neomansio left a visible difficulty unaddressed
After the Council of State had already suspended the first award, Neomansio again awarded the architecture contract for the Héron cremation centre to Triangle Architectes for 594,845.00 euros excluding VAT and this time supported the qualitative selection with a criterion-by-criterion table — but the certificate of satisfactory performance on which the awardee relied for the structural-engineering criterion names as those involved only an architect and a general contractor who are neither the awardee nor its subcontractor, and it was precisely that difficulty the authority never addressed, so the award was suspended again.
What happened?
The cooperative company Neomansio tendered a public services contract for architecture services for the construction of a cremation centre in Héron: a full design assignment covering architecture, structural engineering, special techniques, acoustics, project and execution safety coordination and energy performance, under specifications no. 2025/003. By judgment no. 265.503 of 21 January 2026 the Council of State had already suspended, under extreme urgency, the first award decision of 14 November 2025. Neomansio withdrew that decision on 13 March 2026 and notified all tenderers. On 4 April 2026 it questioned the tenderers on various aspects of their offers relating to qualitative selection; all of them replied. On 14 May 2026 the deputy director-general drew up a new tender evaluation report. The final ranking of the regular offers was: Triangle Architectes 91% at 594,845.00 euros excluding VAT, Lacomble Architecture 73.59% at 703,494.00 euros, and HE-Architectes 64.32% at 664,657.00 euros. On 22 May 2026 the board selected the three tenderers, declared their offers complete and regular, approved the report as an integral part of its deliberation, and awarded the contract to Triangle Architectes as the economically most advantageous regular tender on the basis of the best price-quality ratio. That is the contested decision. The consortium of Lacomble Architecture, Ledroit Pierret Polet Architectes et Associés and Architectes Perry Weber & Associés again sought suspension under extreme urgency on 1 July 2026. Their single plea targeted not the award itself but the reasoning on qualitative selection: what reading had been given to the notions of ‘funeral parlour’, funeral home and crematorium, which references had actually been retained for the awardee, on which third parties did it rely, and what was the matter with the ESPD of the subcontractor Econologic? Neomansio replied that the applicants in truth wanted to see a competitor’s entire selection file so as to redo the assessment, and that the duty to state reasons does not extend that far. Triangle Architectes intervened and endorsed that position. The Council of State sided with the authority on the principles. The required extent of the reasoning depends on the circumstances: on selection it may be more general and more succinct so long as the selection procedure raises no particular difficulties or questions, provided the assessment remains verifiable on reading the file. Where a difficulty does arise, the formal reasoning must state it and explain why the authority considers it resolved. The Council expressly rejected the notion that an authority must disclose, for every selection or exclusion element, enough detail for a third party to redo the verification itself — least of all where documents are covered by business secrecy. It added that the specifications do not exclude the same reference counting for several selection criteria, and that judgment no. 263.286 of 13 May 2025 does not prohibit that in general terms either. On one point, however, Neomansio came unstuck. For selection criterion no. 5, the structural-engineering part, Triangle Architectes relied on a subcontractor’s capacity. Yet the certificate of satisfactory performance in the file does not clearly mention that subcontractor’s involvement: the only parties named are an architect and a general contractor, both distinct from the awardee and from the subcontractor on whose capacity it relies — even though that subcontractor’s name and contact details appear in the document’s header and footer. At the hearing Neomansio itself observed that the certificate for that structural reference had been issued to the HE firm, and confirmed, when questioned by the auditor, that no other selection-criteria analysis table exists. While the contract documents require, for that criterion, a certificate of satisfactory performance signed by the client, neither the contested decision nor the administrative file identified that difficulty, nor did they make it possible to understand why the reference could nonetheless be accepted in those circumstances. To that extent the first limb of the single plea was serious for breach of the duty to state reasons; the Council did not need to examine the remaining complaints. On the balance of interests it found that Neomansio identified no adverse consequences of a suspension and that it saw none either. Triangle Architectes’ intervention was admitted, suspension ordered, and immediate execution of the judgment directed. Item 4 of the applicants’ file, items B, C, D, F.1 to F.6 and I.1 to I.6 of the administrative file and item 3 of the intervening party remain confidential at this stage — the Council stressing that such confidentiality does not prevent it from examining those documents itself. Costs, including the procedural indemnity, were reserved.
Why does this matter?
This judgment draws the boundary of the duty to state reasons on qualitative selection more sharply than most. On one side, the authority is vindicated on something rejected tenderers like to press: there is no right to exhaustive justification allowing one to redo the selection assessment oneself. Where selection raises no particular difficulties, more general and succinct reasoning suffices, and business secrecy justifies not putting every detail of a competitor’s references on the street. A table giving a concrete appraisal per criterion — design or renovation, which type of installation, which permit date, own capacity or a subcontractor’s — is not a stereotyped formula but an indication that a real check took place. On the other side, that very same test flips as soon as a difficulty becomes visible. Brevity is then no longer an option: the decision must name the difficulty and explain why the authority considers it removed. The hinge therefore lies not in the volume of text but in whether the file itself raises questions. Here it did: a certificate of satisfactory performance that the client was required to sign named as those involved parties who were neither the awardee nor its subcontractor. That is not a detail but the very thing the certificate is supposed to prove. The origin of this second round is instructive too. After the first suspension Neomansio had withdrawn its decision, questioned the tenderers and drawn up a new report — a sound reflex. A second suspension followed nonetheless, because the remedial work stopped short: the additional questioning was in the file, but the final step — explaining which doubt it had dispelled — was still missing. A second award decision after a suspension is read more strictly, not more leniently.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, treat your selection table as a report, not a tick-list. For criteria that are plainly met, a succinct but concrete appraisal suffices. For every point on which your own file raises a question — a certificate bearing a name other than the tenderer’s or the subcontractor’s, an ESPD in the wrong entity’s name, a reference you allow to count for two criteria — write down expressly what the problem is and why you consider it resolved. An authority that stays silent about such a difficulty loses not on the substance but on the reasoning. If your specifications require a certificate of satisfactory performance signed by the client, check that the certificate actually identifies the party whose capacity you take it to prove. And expect a second decision after a suspension to be examined closely: organising further questioning is not enough, its outcome must also land in the reasoning. As a tenderer, aim at the demonstrable weak spot rather than at the whole selection. Demanding all of a competitor’s documents so as to redo the assessment will be refused: the duty to state reasons does not go that far, and business secrecy weighs in the balance. Bear in mind too that the same reference may count for several criteria so long as the specifications do not exclude it. What does work is pointing to one concrete inconsistency in the file that the authority left unaddressed — there, the absence of explanation is enough to have the award suspended, without your having to prove that the awardee fails the selection. And request confidential treatment of your own tender: it does not prevent the Council from examining the documents itself.
Ask yourself
Does your selection table say something about this particular reference for each criterion — or merely that the criterion is met? Have you expressly named every point on which your own file raises questions, and explained why you consider it resolved? Do the certificates of satisfactory performance actually identify the tenderer or the subcontractor whose capacity you take them to prove, and are they signed by whoever your specifications require? Is it clear for which criteria reliance on third-party capacity was invoked, and which entity is involved? And as a tenderer: do you have one identifiable inconsistency in the documents, or are you in truth asking for a competitor’s entire file?
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →